The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-03-16
WAS IT REVOLUTION7

ing to do this he and his hackers became revolution
ists.-Journal.
That is not true, and is an example of a
good cause marred by Incorporate statement
That Colonel Robinson held his certificate
from the people is substantially true; whether
the certificate was good or not remains to be
decided. The court held that it could not de-
eide it, being out of its province, but that it
was the business of the Legislature to decide
it. This it refused to do. But this does not
constitute revolution. 1t is a failure of one
of the coordinate branches of the Legislature
to act. And this is different thing from do
ing something forbidden by law. It is this
latter that constitutes revolution. Webster
defines the word as the act of renouncing the
authority Of the government. This the Leg
isature did not do. For the purposes Of this
Robertson matter it was the government, so
it was simply case Of government refusing
to use it's authority. There is no punishment
for such thing, and the only remedy is to elect
government that will use its authority.
The mistake of the Republicans meanwhile
was in not continuing to recognize the form
under which the Legislature had made laws
and was willing to continue it. Such action
would have changed nothing; would have left
Colonel Robertson just where he is to-day.
News
From the very beginning to the present
|
upon every proposition, legal or moral, grow
ing out of the complication over The election
for Lieutenant governor, and never was more
blindlv wrong than in what we have taken
the space to quote in full. Colonel Robert
son holds his certificate of election from the
people. The votes cast for him were opened
o,I Oh Nv, no tod 10
perform that duty by the Constitution. The
record of the act is upon the journals of the
House, in the hall of which the act was per-
formed The contumacy of the Senate, adj
journing as body over the time when this
duty was to be performed, and which it was
invited to be present to witness, could not
possibly invalidate an election. Any
schoolboy in the law knows that.
| Green Smith assumed to contest
the election. The Constitution and the law
provide how he must proceed. Smith did not
choose to obey the law, but took his own ille-
gal and unconstitutional method. The
Supreme Court kicked him out of court, and
told him how alone such contest could be
maintained. The Legislature never refused"
! to decide the question respecting the election,
as the News says it did, 1t did not, for the
very good reason that the question was never
brought before it for determination. The
law says that such an election must be con-
tested by means of notice given to the
/ II
after the session of the General Assembly
began. No such notice was filed within
that time nor during the entire
session of the Assembly. Robert S.
Robertson has and had as perfect
and indefeasible title to the office Of Lieu
tenant governor as Isaac P Gray has and had
to the office of Governor. Would it not be rev.
olutionary for the House of Representatives to
have refused to recognize Governor Gray, or
to have prevented him, if it could by brute
force from discharging the constitutional
duties Of his office? If so, why was it not
equally as revolutionary for the Senate to re-
fuse to recognize Lieutenant governor Rob-
ertson, and to prevent him, by brute force,
from exercising the constitutional functions
of his object Let some one explain the
difference. Let some one give good reason
why the revolution in the one case should be
recognized" and not the revolution
in the other. 1t is not a ques-
tion of few laws or of a
few dollars. 1t is question of government.
What right had the Senate by its arbitrary
majority, to set aside an election and obstruct
a constitutional officer from the exercise of
his dutiesY What right had the Senate to
decide or ''to determine" the contest of the
election? Is there no such thing as princi-
pie in government Is there to be a cowardly
and AFFECT surrender of every principle and
form of constitutional government at the beck
Of thirty-two revolutionists, simply because
somebody may be interested in some scheme
or other, or some bill or other, before the Leg
islature, and prefers to take his measure at
the hands of mob, rather than to stand for
government and possibly lose his legislation9
The concluding statement of the News is
as untrue as its other statement that the
Legislature refused to decide the contest
over the Lieutenant-governorship. When the
injunction had been dissolved, and the SUI
preme Court had, in effect, determined that
Robert S. Robertson had been given a good
prima facie title to the Office Of Lieutenant
governor, which could only be impeached in a
certain way, and no such impeachment had
ever naen nttamnfnd Il hacama his imnara Il va